Bottom Line:
A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for relevant published articles (the last search update was November 18, 2014).A total of ten studies with 1,131 subjects were finally included in this meta-analysis.A similar finding was found in subgroups with the smaller sample size (<100 subjects).

ABSTRACTVEGF is a frequently studied angiogenic factor in ovarian cancer (OC), and is considered to have an important role in the progression of OC. However, its diagnostic value has not been widely accepted because the conclusions are inconsistent and even conflicting. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of VEGF in OC. A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for relevant published articles (the last search update was November 18, 2014). The diagnosis sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were pooled by Meta DiSc 1.4 software. A total of ten studies with 1,131 subjects were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.67 (0.63-0.73), 0.78 (0.75-0.81), 3.08 (6.36-12.22), 0.39 (0.29-0.51), 9.10 (5.43-45.25), and 0.8175, respectively. Furthermore, to explore the sources of heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses based on ethnicity and sample size. The diagnostic accuracy of VEGF was higher in an Asian population than in a Caucasian population. A similar finding was found in subgroups with the smaller sample size (<100 subjects). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that VEGF has moderate diagnostic accuracy for OC. Considering our limitations and the heterogeneity among our selected studies, larger, well-designed prospective and multicenter validation studies are needed to evaluate the diagnostic value of serum VEGF for OC.

Mentions:
The process of study selection was shown in Figure 1. We initially identified 1,071 candidate articles reporting results regarding circulating VEGF levels and the risk of OC. Of the 1,071 studies, 1,035 were excluded following a preliminary review, leaving 36 studies for detailed full-text evaluation. Finally, a total of ten studies with 478 cases and 653 controls were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. The characteristics of the included studies were shown in Table 1.16–25 Of ten studies, six studies were conducted in Western countries, and four studies were conducted in Asian countries. Circulating VEGF was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in all included studies. All studies were published from 1998 to 2013, and the sample sizes ranged from 60 to 260 subjects.

Mentions:
The process of study selection was shown in Figure 1. We initially identified 1,071 candidate articles reporting results regarding circulating VEGF levels and the risk of OC. Of the 1,071 studies, 1,035 were excluded following a preliminary review, leaving 36 studies for detailed full-text evaluation. Finally, a total of ten studies with 478 cases and 653 controls were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. The characteristics of the included studies were shown in Table 1.16–25 Of ten studies, six studies were conducted in Western countries, and four studies were conducted in Asian countries. Circulating VEGF was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in all included studies. All studies were published from 1998 to 2013, and the sample sizes ranged from 60 to 260 subjects.

Bottom Line:
A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for relevant published articles (the last search update was November 18, 2014).A total of ten studies with 1,131 subjects were finally included in this meta-analysis.A similar finding was found in subgroups with the smaller sample size (<100 subjects).

ABSTRACTVEGF is a frequently studied angiogenic factor in ovarian cancer (OC), and is considered to have an important role in the progression of OC. However, its diagnostic value has not been widely accepted because the conclusions are inconsistent and even conflicting. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic value of VEGF in OC. A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for relevant published articles (the last search update was November 18, 2014). The diagnosis sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were pooled by Meta DiSc 1.4 software. A total of ten studies with 1,131 subjects were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.67 (0.63-0.73), 0.78 (0.75-0.81), 3.08 (6.36-12.22), 0.39 (0.29-0.51), 9.10 (5.43-45.25), and 0.8175, respectively. Furthermore, to explore the sources of heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses based on ethnicity and sample size. The diagnostic accuracy of VEGF was higher in an Asian population than in a Caucasian population. A similar finding was found in subgroups with the smaller sample size (<100 subjects). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggests that VEGF has moderate diagnostic accuracy for OC. Considering our limitations and the heterogeneity among our selected studies, larger, well-designed prospective and multicenter validation studies are needed to evaluate the diagnostic value of serum VEGF for OC.